Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EuchreJack]

There is a third option - don't let space exploration and colonisation be led by private commercial initiatives. There is something ludicrous about the US government spending more paying private space companies for space missions than they give to NASA

They can feed off each other.  The Private Sector's success puts public pressure for NASA to be improved, NASA can outsource the more riskier stuff onto the Private Sector.  For Nationalist reasons, the currently developing situation in the US is better than the past.  Instead of being reliant on the Russians to support US space missions, the Private Sector can step in.

Here is a good question: What separates Bezos from Shaq (of today)?
Shaq is extremely hard working and charismatic, yet doesn't have the wealth of Bezos.  I think it is because Shaq hasn't invented anything major yet that has grown like Bezos creation.  If Shaq did create something revolutionary, should Shaq lose his money?

...really, the Ultra-Rich folk should be able to keep at least enough of their money to remain Ultra-Rich and keep using it.  It's their kids you should really be complaining about.  They're the next Trumps.

[MaxTheFox]

Yes. Every billionaire must be cut down to size. No exceptions.

[Scoops Novel]

Again guys, realistic goals. Simply too many idiots in the world to get rid of capitalism.

[Magmacube_tr]

Again guys, realistic goals. Simply too many idiots in the world to get rid of capitalism.

THEN ALL-OUT-ANARCHY IT IS!!! TP IS MINE!!!

[MaxTheFox]

Again guys, realistic goals. Simply too many idiots in the world to get rid of capitalism.

I have nothing against small businesses, but I'm all for gutting the megacorps. Nothing is really stopping a government from doing so in most places besides being in their pocket.

[Scoops Novel]

Again guys, realistic goals. Simply too many idiots in the world to get rid of capitalism.

I have nothing against small businesses, but I'm all for gutting the megacorps. Nothing is really stopping a government from doing so in most places besides being in their pocket.

And when will they ever not be? Simply not a good short-term plan, and we have shortiiish term problems.

[MaxTheFox]

Again guys, realistic goals. Simply too many idiots in the world to get rid of capitalism.

I have nothing against small businesses, but I'm all for gutting the megacorps. Nothing is really stopping a government from doing so in most places besides being in their pocket.

And when will they ever not be? Simply not a good short-term plan, and we have shortiiish term problems.

When someone with a spine is elected. Which would require the people to be more conscious of that.

[McTraveller]

It's the fundamental dilemma of all human endeavor: when you act collectively, you can pool resources to do things you can't do when your resources are not pooled.

As this thread has already noted - it's not the pooling of resources that is fundamentally the problem; rather, it's how those pooled resources are used.

It's better, although more difficult, to limit the unwanted uses of pooled resources, not the pooling of resources itself.

[EuchreJack]

Does anyone actually think that Elon Musk is the only one that profits from his endeavors?
Has nobody heard of that abomination called Incorporation?

Those are pools of resources by humans acting collectively.  We scapegoat Elon because we must put a face on people that have more than us.

Humans, on some fundamental level, are Crabs.

"How DARE someone have more than me!!!!!!! Death to the rich!  All must be equal!  Kill the beautiful and the smart until we are all the same!"

As for the nonsense about regulating large businesses and not hurting small businesses, that is a fiction.  Most things that hurt large businesses will be used to hurt small businesses.  The only exception is those precious laws that put arbitrary caps on employees, but even that creates a bizzaro world where small businesses can't grow beyond a certain point, which still hurts them by never letting them grow into midsize businesses which HELPS large businesses.

Again guys, realistic goals. Simply too many idiots in the world to get rid of capitalism.

I have nothing against small businesses, but I'm all for gutting the megacorps. Nothing is really stopping a government from doing so in most places besides being in their pocket.

And when will they ever not be? Simply not a good short-term plan, and we have shortiiish term problems.

When someone with a spine is elected. Which would require the people to be more conscious of that.

Your country has a leader with the biggest spine I've seen.  How is that working for you?

More seriously, such subjective drivel isn't worth commenting on.  If I do what you want, you say I'm brave.  If I do what people you don't like want, I'm a spineless coward.

Rest assured, Communists are at large in America.  The real risk to those who like that sort for thing is that they're prone to ideological drift.  Once a person HAS STUFF, they want to KEEP STUFF.  So they're at best hypocrites and at worst they betray their own ideologies.

[None]

The Red Scare again? You're damning incremental improvement for the working class because human greed, which already flourishes under unfettered capitalism, may also be present in alternate forms of commerce?

[Frumple]

Humans, on some fundamental level, are Crabs.

"How DARE someone have more than me!!!!!!! Death to the rich!  All must be equal!  Kill the beautiful and the smart until we are all the same!"

Nah, most folks don't really give a damn about people having more than them, they give a damn about what the rich are doing with it. "More" isn't a problem, "shitting on other people on continental scales" is the problem. If enriching people to the point of billionaires actually made the world a better place, precious few people would care. Unfortunately, reality exists and that ain't what happens.

So, y'know. Eat the rich. Figuratively, probably. There's neither good reason for nor good results from letting that kind of resource and power accumulation be in one set of hands.

[voliol]

People go for the billionaires because capitalistic wrongs scale with capital. A billionaire does not only have proportionally greater opportunity to do good by giving up the riches, but the capital must have come from somewhere too, a bigger slice of the profit exploited off workers the world around goes to each billionaire. From a leftist perspective it is also political pragmatism. You sort out the bad guys everyone can agree on first, before having the more sensible discussion of where to draw the line. I don’t see what’s wrong with that.

[MaxTheFox]

Does anyone actually think that Elon Musk is the only one that profits from his endeavors?
Has nobody heard of that abomination called Incorporation?

Those are pools of resources by humans acting collectively.  We scapegoat Elon because we must put a face on people that have more than us.

Humans, on some fundamental level, are Crabs.

"How DARE someone have more than me!!!!!!! Death to the rich!  All must be equal!  Kill the beautiful and the smart until we are all the same!"

As for the nonsense about regulating large businesses and not hurting small businesses, that is a fiction.  Most things that hurt large businesses will be used to hurt small businesses.  The only exception is those precious laws that put arbitrary caps on employees, but even that creates a bizzaro world where small businesses can't grow beyond a certain point, which still hurts them by never letting them grow into midsize businesses which HELPS large businesses.

Again guys, realistic goals. Simply too many idiots in the world to get rid of capitalism.

I have nothing against small businesses, but I'm all for gutting the megacorps. Nothing is really stopping a government from doing so in most places besides being in their pocket.

And when will they ever not be? Simply not a good short-term plan, and we have shortiiish term problems.

When someone with a spine is elected. Which would require the people to be more conscious of that.

Your country has a leader with the biggest spine I've seen.  How is that working for you?

More seriously, such subjective drivel isn't worth commenting on.  If I do what you want, you say I'm brave.  If I do what people you don't like want, I'm a spineless coward.

Rest assured, Communists are at large in America.  The real risk to those who like that sort for thing is that they're prone to ideological drift.  Once a person HAS STUFF, they want to KEEP STUFF.  So they're at best hypocrites and at worst they betray their own ideologies.

1. You are strawmanning me.

2. Artificial caps are the way, you can't help large businesses by only keeping small and mid-sized ones if the only large ones are state-owned.

3. He has a spine, he just uses it in the wrong way.

4. I am not a communist, I am a Menshevik-style socialist. There's a difference.

Humans, on some fundamental level, are Crabs.

"How DARE someone have more than me!!!!!!! Death to the rich!  All must be equal!  Kill the beautiful and the smart until we are all the same!"

Nah, most folks don't really give a damn about people having more than them, they give a damn about what the rich are doing with it. "More" isn't a problem, "shitting on other people on continental scales" is the problem. If enriching people to the point of billionaires actually made the world a better place, precious few people would care. Unfortunately, reality exists and that ain't what happens.

So, y'know. Eat the rich. Figuratively, probably. There's neither good reason for nor good results from letting that kind of resource and power accumulation be in one set of hands.

This.

[EuchreJack]

Alright.

If someone HAS something, and they CAN'T use it in whatever dickish way that they want, that is a loss of Personal Freedom.
It's the same as saying they can't say something because you don't like it.

Arguably, the MORE somethings a person has, the more of a loss of Personal Freedom we're talking about.

What is the point to this conversation?  I mean, why am I bothering? Why are you bothering?

On your end, it feels good to say "Kill the Rich".  But seriously, what am I getting out of this by explaining how stupid you sound?

I swear, the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats have given up on ever being Rich, so they adhere to the "Everyone Poor" philosophy.
That forces anyone that actually would like to be rich to turn Republican.  Or profit off the Rich.  Or own a business.

Nobody forms a business to be mediocre.  Granted, many of us find that we're probably going to be at that level for the majority of our lives.  But we all start businesses with some spark of us hoping to "Strike it big".
Lord knows I fuck over Future Me enough, so I have little interest in further sacrificing Possible Future Rich Me.

[MaxTheFox]

Alright.

If someone HAS something, and they CAN'T use it in whatever dickish way that they want, that is a loss of Personal Freedom.
It's the same as saying they can't say something because you don't like it.

Arguably, the MORE somethings a person has, the more of a loss of Personal Freedom we're talking about.

What is the point to this conversation?  I mean, why am I bothering? Why are you bothering?

On your end, it feels good to say "Kill the Rich".  But seriously, what am I getting out of this by explaining how stupid you sound?

I swear, the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats have given up on ever being Rich, so they adhere to the "Everyone Poor" philosophy.
That forces anyone that actually would like to be rich to turn Republican.  Or profit off the Rich.  Or own a business.

Nobody forms a business to be mediocre.  Granted, many of us find that we're probably going to be at that level for the majority of our lives.  But we all start businesses with some spark of us hoping to "Strike it big".
Lord knows I fuck over Future Me enough, so I have little interest in further sacrificing Possible Future Rich Me.

I think we have a conflict of fundamental interests. If preventing someone from using their money to be a dick is a loss of personal (more like economic) freedom... then so be it. I support civil rights, and being a billionaire is not a civil right.

When businesses growing big enough hurts everyone else then I'm completely fine with cutting tall poppies. Call me an authoritarian or w/e. I believe economic freedom is actively bad in large enough amounts because I am something of a collectivist.

Besides, I am not a Democrat, or a Republican, because I live in Russia.